American Immigration Control Foundation

Former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer endorsed President Trump’s proposal for a border wall. She stated, “I often used to say, a country with a border secured is like a house without walls, it collapses. You have to have your houses protected or it will collapse. And if you don’t have a wall on the border, our country is going to collapse. It’s as simple as that. And it doesn’t seem to be something that’s very hard to understand. . . . The Democrats, the left-leaning liberal Democrats just want open borders. I think that’s very plain. ”

President Trump tweeted that changes to the H-1B program are coming “soon.” One is granting foreign workers holding H-1B visas a potential pathway to citizenship. Many Americans have complained that companies’ use of H-1B visas prevents qualified Americans from getting jobs, particularly in high tech fields.

President Donald Trump sees tactical advantage in extending his dispute with Congress over funding his “wall.” Most of the country would be grateful if he and the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives came to terms and let the government get back to doing its job.

A deal of the kind recently floated by Sen. Lindsey Graham ought to be possible: Allow the administration additional funding for border security while extending protections for so-called Dreamers (young people brought illegally to the U.S. as children) as well as for several hundred thousand holders of temporary protected status. This would afford both sides a partial win. . . .

Washington should strike a deal on Dreamers and border security. If Trump calls it a win, fine. Voters won’t be fooled, and $5 billion or so for a wall that doesn’t work and isn’t even a wall would be a price worth paying for securing the Dreamers’ future and letting the government at least turn up for work. – Editorial: Strike a Deal on Trump’s Wall, The Columbus Dispatch, 1/6/19 [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: This proposed deal is truly a bad deal for anyone wanting genuine immigration reform. A wall, at least in some strategic areas, can be a useful tool against illegal immigration. But President Trump is mistaken if he believes that is the most important step necessary to curtail illegal immigration. One reason is that as many as half of illegal aliens did not illegally cross the border to get here. They come on legal temporary visas and then overstay those visas. Just as important or more important than walls is a tracking system to make sure that temporary visitors go home.

Also crucial are steps to prevent illegal aliens from taking jobs once they are here. Lacking chances for employment, Illegal aliens are less likely to come, or remain if they are already here. A key to this objective is mandatory use of the E-Verify system, which enables employers to do a quick check on the legal status of the people they hire. Curbing illegal immigration, furthermore, will require increased cooperation between ICE and non-federal law enforcement agencies.

Wall building is not a big enough concession to justify amnesty for as many as 1.8 million illegal aliens in the Dreamer category. And adding on hundreds of thousands of temporary protected status (TPS) people is an even worse deal.

Some kind of agreement might be possible which grants amnesty to the 800,000 Dreamers who have actually applied for legal residence. Not willingly breaking our laws mitigates their offence. But all TPS people whose justification for residence has expired should go home.

For a limited DACA amnesty, it would be reasonable for immigration advocates to concede a wall, an effective entry/exit tracking system and mandatory E-Verify. Another proper concession would be a reduction of legal immigration categories, such as the provision allowing immigrants to petition for their parents to have permanent residence. With this provision in place DACA recipients of amnesty could petition for their parents—the people who did choose to beak our immigration laws.

These steps would do much to stop illegal immigration. Would immigration advocates be willing to accept it? It depends on whether they really want to stop it.

President Trump addressed the nation last night to defend his proposal to build walls along the Mexican border. “Some,” he stated in his speech, “have suggested a barrier is immoral. Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians do nothing and continue to allow more innocent [American] people to be so horribly victimized.”

Kris Kobach, secretary of state of Kansas, is a long-time advocate of effective border control. He recently expressed disagreement with the idea that high-tech solutions alone can secure the border. Said Kobach, “The argument we sometimes hear from people who say they want border security but really aren’t serious about it is ‘Oh, we’ll just have drones and sensors.’ Well, a drone and a sensor tells you that somebody is entering the United States, it doesn’t stop the person from entering the United States. The wall is exactly, the single most effective tool, other than Border Patrol agents, and that’s what we need. The American people recognize it.”

President Trump said that if the stalemate over funding a border wall continues–which has caused a partial shutdown of the government–he will consider declaring a national emergency. He affirmed that “We’re looking at a national emergency because we have a national emergency. Just read the papers. We have a crisis at the border. . . . it is national security, it’s a national emergency.” Under such an emergency, the president maintains, he would have authority to direct funding for border security.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the June jobs report, which shows that the labor market is tight. American companies are looking for workers. . . . One affordable and perhaps even desirable solution to continue to fill the jobs that are opening at a steady pace is to increase immigration. . . . [President Trump], like others before him, has often used the economy as a reason to limit immigration to the United States, arguing that immigrants take American jobs. . . . In fact, most modern economists would argue that increased immigration is the key to solving [the] labor shortage problem facing our country. – Immigration Is the Best Solution for the Shortage of Workers in America, The Hill, Joseph Minarik and Caroline Ferguson, 7/6/18 [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: The idea we’re facing a labor shortage is hard to understand when studies agree that computers, robots, and other machines will be replacing a third or more to the human workforce within the next ten to twenty years. Even this weren’t the case, the notion that we’re facing a genuine shortage of people who can work is questionable.

Our rate of unemployment is now relatively low. But that rate does not count millions of people of working age who are not in the workforce. Thus we would have a lot more workers if these people could be persuaded to seek employment. Something that would definitely promote that goal would be a general and significant rise of wages. One reason this isn’t happening is the downward pressure that mass immigration exerts on wage levels.

Yes, there is a shortage of workers in some occupations at the wage levels and conditions that some employers are offering. But rather than raise wages and improve conditions, these employers want the easy way out—just keep on hiring foreigners who will accept low wages and hardships. Meanwhile, these workers will apply for welfare so they make ends meet. Thus the American taxpayer is subsidizing the profits of cheap labor-addicted businesses.

As one commentator noted, “A ‘labor shortage’ is good news: It means it’s easier for unemployed people to find jobs, more appealing for people who quit the workforce out of frustration to get back in, and likelier that companies will decide they must pay higher wages to attract talent.”

For more than fifty years, employers have enjoyed the benefits of cheap labor provided by mass immigration. Now it time for American workers to enjoy higher wages and other benefits through lower immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that a “violent mob” of about 150 migrants tried to force their way into the U.S. at the San Diego sector of the U.S.-Mexican border on New Year’s eve. DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman stated, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our [Border Patrol and Customs] agents with projectiles.” Some of the migrants tried to lift small children over the concertina wire barrier at the border with little apparent regard for the safety of those children.

Many members of the migrant caravan that left Central America in October are still on the Mexican side of the border seeking to enter the United States. Meanwhile, according to reports, a new and larger caravan–an estimated 15 thousand migrants–is preparing to leave Honduras on January 15 and head for the U.S.

“The Trump administration’s announcement on Thursday that it will make some asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their court cases are resolved in the United States [is] very [disturbing]. . . .

“Those fleeing Central America often face a level of violence akin to what we think of as occurring in war zones. I have talked to refugees who have been shot, raped, extorted, kidnapped and had their houses burned down by gangs allied with corrupt police officers. The latest move could potentially cause hundreds of thousands of them to pile up along the Mexican side of the border. With thousands of asylum applications being made every month, and with a huge backlog in United States immigration courts, migrants’ cases could take years to resolve. . . .

“Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen claims the move will prevent people from using asylum applications to get into the United States and slip into the shadows. ‘Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates,’ she said on Thursday. Studies show, however, that the vast majority of asylum seekers show up for their hearings.” – The Mexican Border as Refugee Camp, The New York Times, Ioan Grillo, 12/21/18 [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: The crime some people face in Central America is unfortunate, but it is not grounds to permit them to come to United States. Specifically, it is not a basis for claiming asylum. That requires “a well-founded fear of persecution” based on a person’s characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, and political views. In point of fact, studies show that fear of crime is not the leading reason that prompts Central Americans to migrate. Far and away the leading motive is to find better economic opportunities. That too provides no legal ground for people to migrate to the United States. As a practical matter, our country is simply unable to absorb any significant percentage or the world’s poor.

DHS Secretary Nielson is absolutely correct to point out that bogus asylum claims are simply a tactic that many migrants are using to get into the United States—and then disappear. The claim that “the vast majority of asylum seekers” show up for their hearings, rather than abscond, is misleading. It apparently refers to the 89 percent of applicants who show up for asylum hearings. But to go those hearings, an asylum seeker must first go through an initial screening to determine if he has what may be a credible claim of persecution. Fifty-five percent of people who pass this screening never show up for the amnesty hearing—they abscond.

Commenting on this situation, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions observed, “The system is being gamed. The credible fear process was intended to be a lifeline for persons facing serious persecution. But it has become an easy ticket to illegal entry into the United States.” No truer words were ever spoken.

Social Media

Stay Informed: Subscribe to blog postings

Sign Up for Our E-Newsletter

Sign Up form

Email:

Support AIC Foundation

Bequests to AIC Foundation

Leaving money or property to AIC Foundation can be accomplished in the same way as leaving it to relatives or friends. Although there are many variations, bequests generally can be divided into two classes, specific and residual: A specific request is a will provision which designates a particular piece of property or sum of money to the recipient. Example: “I bequeath to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc., a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA, one hundred shares of XYZ Company stock [or the sum, of $........] for its general purposes.”

A residual bequest disposes of the part of the estate remaining after all other claims and bequests are taken care of. Example: “I bequeath all [one half] of the rest, residue and remainder of the property owned by me at my death, real and personal and wherever situated, to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.” Both specific and residual bequests can include contingent bequests to provide for an alternative disposition of the inheritance if the primary beneficiary is no longer living when the will is implemented. Example: “ I bequest to my sister Jane Doe the sum of $......, but if she does not survive me, then I bequeath the same to the American Immigration Control Foundation Inc. a Virginia non-profit corporation, Monterey, VA for its general purposes.”

Our Mission

As part of our educational mission, AIC Foundation encourages free and open expression of differing and responsible viewpoints. Views expressed in posts, articles linked, etc., are those of the authors and not necessarily of AIC Foundation. AIC Foundation is non-partisan, and does not lobby for or against any specific proposed legislation.